tom, thanks for being with us. the defense cross-examined the coroner's investigator trying to to show she made a number of mistakes in jackson's room. was their argument effective? >> i thought he did a very good job. he was very prepared. he left no stone unturned. he didn't bully the witness but he was firm in his cross. no investigation is ever perfect and no investigator is ever perfect. the question is, with some of these imperfections or inconsistencies rise to a significant level? they may or may not. it depends on how they play into other evidence that comes up later in the trial. right now, i didn't hear anything that was fatal. but you don't know how it's going to connect with other things later on. >> the investor was saying, i didn't mention the iv bag in the initial report but in a more detailed report later on, i did. >> that's right. of course, he's suggesting it's suspicious that you were influenced by prosecutors and by witnesses, that kind of thing. that's where he was coming from, in my opinion.